- Social and Cultural Anthropology, Political Anthropology, Cultural Tourism, Heritage Tourism, Anthropology of Tourism, Cultures and heritage tourism, and 15 moreAnthropology of Tibet and the Himalayas, Tibetan and Himalayan societies, Ladakh studies, Climate change discourses and glocalisation, Anthropology of Belonging, Sustainable Development, Sustainable Tourism, Conflict Management, Educational Philosophy, Educational Anthropology, Anthropology of Organizations, Himalayan culture, Ladakhi Studies, Anthropology of Risk, and Environmental Sustainabilityedit
In April 2019, Dasho Karma Ura, the director of the Centre for Bhutan and GNH Studies in Thimphu, opened the Third International Vajrayana Conference, by stat- ing that he is taking pride in the fact that Bhutan is the last remaining... more
In April 2019, Dasho Karma Ura, the director of the Centre for Bhutan and GNH Studies in Thimphu, opened the Third International Vajrayana Conference, by stat- ing that he is taking pride in the fact that Bhutan is the last remaining Vajrayana Bud- dhist nation-state in the world, and his country consequently had a responsibility in safeguarding and preserving the Vajrayana Buddhist teachings. The prime minister of Bhutan, Dr. Lotay Tshering, gave an inaugural speech and H.M. Jigme Namgyal Wangchuck, the Fifth King of Bhutan offered a private audience to all international participants at the final day of the Conference, both of them reinforcing Bhutan’s strong sense of ownership of the Vajrayana Buddhist teachings as their ‘main stake- holders’. The conference was attended by a wide range of international scholars and practitioners of Vajrayana Buddhism, as well the local intellectual elite and people in power.
The Bhutanese Buddhist state was founded by a Tibetan Lama and many important Tibet-born Buddhist authorities directly impacted Bhutan by spreading the Buddhist teachings there in person. Still, in present discourse, Bhutanese exclusively refer to their Buddhist practice as Vajrayana and Mahayana Buddhism, rather than ‘Tibetan Buddhism’, and when talking about their liturgical language solely use the term chos skad (“dharma language”), avoiding the English term “Classical Tibetan” at all costs. Obviously, there is a politically motivated necessity to protect the tiny state’s sover- eignty by means of emphasising its distinctive culture which is not to be equalled with Tibetan culture, stressing Bhutan’s ‘Non-Tibetanness’.
When researching Bhutan’s communal Vajrayana festivals, I was often taken aback, how different Bhutanese practice of ‘cham festivals is in comparison to all festivals I had observed in Ladakhi/Zanskari and Tibetan-exile monasteries in India and what I knew from literature about ‘chams located in Tibet. As a consequence, I started to understand Bhutanese practice of ‘Tibetan Buddhism’ as syncretism, a “creative blend- ing of indigenous and foreign beliefs or practices into new cultural forms” (Havilland 2013), resulting in ‘Bhutaneseness’ of Vajrayana Buddhism in Bhutan, rather than ‘Ti- betanness’. Drawing on my field research, I would like to discuss ‘Non-Tibetanness’ and the transformation of ‘Tibetanness’ into ‘Bhutaneseness’ using the example of communal ‘cham festivals in Bhutan.
The Bhutanese Buddhist state was founded by a Tibetan Lama and many important Tibet-born Buddhist authorities directly impacted Bhutan by spreading the Buddhist teachings there in person. Still, in present discourse, Bhutanese exclusively refer to their Buddhist practice as Vajrayana and Mahayana Buddhism, rather than ‘Tibetan Buddhism’, and when talking about their liturgical language solely use the term chos skad (“dharma language”), avoiding the English term “Classical Tibetan” at all costs. Obviously, there is a politically motivated necessity to protect the tiny state’s sover- eignty by means of emphasising its distinctive culture which is not to be equalled with Tibetan culture, stressing Bhutan’s ‘Non-Tibetanness’.
When researching Bhutan’s communal Vajrayana festivals, I was often taken aback, how different Bhutanese practice of ‘cham festivals is in comparison to all festivals I had observed in Ladakhi/Zanskari and Tibetan-exile monasteries in India and what I knew from literature about ‘chams located in Tibet. As a consequence, I started to understand Bhutanese practice of ‘Tibetan Buddhism’ as syncretism, a “creative blend- ing of indigenous and foreign beliefs or practices into new cultural forms” (Havilland 2013), resulting in ‘Bhutaneseness’ of Vajrayana Buddhism in Bhutan, rather than ‘Ti- betanness’. Drawing on my field research, I would like to discuss ‘Non-Tibetanness’ and the transformation of ‘Tibetanness’ into ‘Bhutaneseness’ using the example of communal ‘cham festivals in Bhutan.
